If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Yellowstone Oil Spill
On Jul 9, 8:09*am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Bob wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: ... Ken Fortenberry *- roff 87-present including duty as early warning bull**** detector Geeze, must be awfully annoying always setting off your own alarm. Few things can set off all five bull**** detectors at once but this gem is bona fide five-alarm bull****. "3. The Yellowstone is in full flood and flowing very swiftly, thus much of the oil will be in the lower Missouri & the Mississippi and widely dispersed very soon." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Big Mouth Billy Bob The fact of the matter is that the flood has pushed significant amounts of the oil into fragile wetlands and marshes and it has *not* washed downstream. Dumbass. -- Ken Fortenberry And this fact is based on? If you study the pictures of the Yellowstone in that area you will quickly see that: 1. Due to the high level of flooding, MOST streamside wetlands are underwater with strong current flowing through them. Undoubtedly there are a few permanent wetlands away from the normal channel that are affected. However, that is not at odds with my statement about " ...MUCH of the oil...". 2 A significant amount of oil has been (though, based on the pictures, is only a small fraction of the 1000 barrels) pushed up onto dry land pastures and crop land where it certainly can be a problem, but is also much easier to clean up there than if it remained in the river. My original comments never addressed this issue, and regardless are not at odds with it. You are either a very sloppy reader or ,more likely, choose to ignore all qualifiers in any statement, and your response is to your skewed interpretation of what was said or to your skewed perception of the posters intent. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Yellowstone Oil Spill
Bob wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: Few things can set off all five bull**** detectors at once but this gem is bona fide five-alarm bull****. "3. The Yellowstone is in full flood and flowing very swiftly, thus much of the oil will be in the lower Missouri& the Mississippi and widely dispersed very soon." -- Big Mouth Billy Bob The fact of the matter is that the flood has pushed significant amounts of the oil into fragile wetlands and marshes and it has *not* washed downstream. Dumbass. And this fact is based on? Reports in the _New York Times_, which I will accept as fact until proven otherwise. ... You are either a very sloppy reader or ,more likely, choose to ignore all qualifiers in any statement, and your response is to your skewed interpretation of what was said or to your skewed perception of the posters intent. BWAHAHAHAHA ! *THAT'S* your excuse for posting dumbass bull**** in response to a request for details beyond the superficial ? I'm a sloppy reader of weasel words ? snicker -- Ken Fortenberry |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Yellowstone Oil Spill
On Jul 9, 6:01*pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Bob wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: Few things can set off all five bull**** detectors at once but this gem is bona fide five-alarm bull****. "3. The Yellowstone is in full flood and flowing very swiftly, thus much of the oil will be in the lower Missouri& *the Mississippi and widely dispersed very soon." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Big Mouth Billy Bob The fact of the matter is that the flood has pushed significant amounts of the oil into fragile wetlands and marshes and it has *not* washed downstream. Dumbass. And this fact is based on? Reports in the _New York Times_, which I will accept as fact until proven otherwise. ... You are either a very sloppy reader or ,more likely, BWAHAHAHAHA ! *THAT'S* your excuse for posting dumbass bull**** in response to a request for details beyond the superficial ? I'm a sloppy reader of weasel words ? snicker -- Ken Fortenberry So when someone uses words like MUCH or MOST because that is precisely what they meant, you consider them weasel words,. and, in your mind they really meant ALL. Thus I am correct in my assessment that you " choose to ignore all qualifiers in any statement, and your response is to your skewed interpretation of what was said or to your skewed perception of the posters intent." How can live live in a world in which everything is either one way or the other and there are no instances of part this and part that? You may consider my response superficial, but there are no posts in this thread besides mine gave any information whatsoever on this event that wasn't in the national media. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Yellowstone Oil Spill
On Jul 9, 6:01*pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Bob wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: Few things can set off all five bull**** detectors at once but this gem is bona fide five-alarm bull****. "3. The Yellowstone is in full flood and flowing very swiftly, thus much of the oil will be in the lower Missouri& *the Mississippi and widely dispersed very soon." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Big Mouth Billy Bob The fact of the matter is that the flood has pushed significant amounts of the oil into fragile wetlands and marshes and it has *not* washed downstream. Dumbass. And this fact is based on? Reports in the _New York Times_, which I will accept as fact until proven otherwise. ... You are either a very sloppy reader or ,more likely, choose to ignore all qualifiers in any statement, and your response is to your skewed interpretation of what was said or to your skewed perception of the posters intent. BWAHAHAHAHA ! *THAT'S* your excuse for posting dumbass bull**** in response to a request for details beyond the superficial ? I'm a sloppy reader of weasel words ? snicker -- Ken Fortenberry So when someone uses words like MUCH or MOST because that is precisely what they meant, you consider them weasel words, and, in your mind they really meant ALL. Thus I am correct in my assessment that you " choose to ignore all qualifiers in any statement, and your response is to your skewed interpretation of what was said or to your skewed perception of the posters intent." How can you live live in a world in which everything is either one way or the other and there are no instances of part this and part that? You may consider my response to the original post superficial, but there are no posts in this thread besides mine that give any information whatsoever -that wasn't in the national media - on this event .. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Yellowstone Oil Spill
Bob wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: Bob wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: Few things can set off all five bull**** detectors at once but this gem is bona fide five-alarm bull****. "3. The Yellowstone is in full flood and flowing very swiftly, thus much of the oil will be in the lower Missouri& the Mississippi and widely dispersed very soon." -- Big Mouth Billy Bob The fact of the matter is that the flood has pushed significant amounts of the oil into fragile wetlands and marshes and it has *not* washed downstream. Dumbass. And this fact is based on? Reports in the _New York Times_, which I will accept as fact until proven otherwise. ... You are either a very sloppy reader or ,more likely, choose to ignore all qualifiers in any statement, and your response is to your skewed interpretation of what was said or to your skewed perception of the posters intent. BWAHAHAHAHA ! *THAT'S* your excuse for posting dumbass bull**** in response to a request for details beyond the superficial ? I'm a sloppy reader of weasel words ?snicker So when someone uses words like MUCH or MOST because that is precisely what they meant, you consider them weasel words, and, in your mind they really meant ALL. Thus I am correct in my assessment that you " choose to ignore all qualifiers in any statement, and your response is to your skewed interpretation of what was said or to your skewed perception of the posters intent." How can you live live in a world in which everything is either one way or the other and there are no instances of part this and part that? You may consider my response to the original post superficial, but there are no posts in this thread besides mine that give any information whatsoever -that wasn't in the national media - on this event There are no posts in this thread, including yours, which give any information whatsoever not given in the national media. Further, your post contained misinformation, that is to say you don't know what in the hell you're talking about. -- Ken Fortenberry |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Yellowstone Oil Spill
On Jul 10, 4:26*am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Bob wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: Bob wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: Few things can set off all five bull**** detectors at once but this gem is bona fide five-alarm bull****. "3. The Yellowstone is in full flood and flowing very swiftly, thus much of the oil will be in the lower Missouri& * *the Mississippi and widely dispersed very soon." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Big Mouth Billy Bob The fact of the matter is that the flood has pushed significant amounts of the oil into fragile wetlands and marshes and it has *not* washed downstream. Dumbass. And this fact is based on? Reports in the _New York Times_, which I will accept as fact until proven otherwise. ... You are either a very sloppy reader or ,more likely, choose to ignore all qualifiers in any statement, and your response is to your skewed interpretation of what was said or to your skewed perception of the posters intent. BWAHAHAHAHA ! *THAT'S* your excuse for posting dumbass bull**** in response to a request for details beyond the superficial ? I'm a sloppy reader of weasel words ?snicker So when someone uses words like MUCH *or MOST because that is precisely what they meant, you consider them weasel words, and, in your mind they really meant ALL. *Thus I am correct in my assessment that you " choose to ignore *all qualifiers in any statement, and your response is to your skewed interpretation of what was said or to your skewed perception of the posters intent." How can you live *live in a world in which everything is either one way or the other and there are no instances of part this and part that? You may consider my response to the original post superficial, but there are no posts in this thread besides mine that give any information whatsoever -that wasn't in the national media - on this event There are no posts in this thread, including yours, which give any information whatsoever not given in the national media. Further, your post contained misinformation, that is to say you don't know what in the hell you're talking about. -- Ken Fortenberry A careful reader will find no misinformation in my post. There are at least 3 bits of information in my post that are not to be found in the national media, though I cannot expect anyone with your mindset (e.g. there is no Fawn Lake) and limited intellect to find them. Well time to bail this poke the troll exercise. It looks like the pig is having too much fun. TaTa |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Yellowstone Oil Spill
Bob wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: There are no posts in this thread, including yours, which give any information whatsoever not given in the national media. Further, your post contained misinformation, that is to say you don't know what in the hell you're talking about. A careful reader will find no misinformation in my post. There are at least 3 bits of information in my post that are not to be found in the national media, though I cannot expect anyone with your mindset (e.g. there is no Fawn Lake) and limited intellect to find them. Well time to bail this poke the troll exercise. It looks like the pig is having too much fun. TaTa I wouldn't expect a Swiftboating ****-weasel to be swayed by facts. If you could be swayed by facts you wouldn't be a Swiftboating ****-weasel in the first place. I will spell it out for you anyway. Your misinformation post inferred that the flooding was a "good" thing because it would disperse the oil spill and send it downstream. In actual fact the flooding is a "bad" thing because it spread the oil into fragile wetlands, marshes and low-lying areas which would not have been affected were it not for the flooding. Your post was dumbass bull**** and misinformation to boot. You have no idea what the hell you're talking about and when confronted with actual fact you revert to personal attack just like the nasty little Swiftboating ****-weasel you really are. The careful reader will find no misinformation in this post. LOL !! -- Ken Fortenberry |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Yellowstone Oil Spill
On 2011-07-10 18:23:56 -0400, Ken Fortenberry
said: Bob wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: There are no posts in this thread, including yours, which give any information whatsoever not given in the national media. Further, your post contained misinformation, that is to say you don't know what in the hell you're talking about. A careful reader will find no misinformation in my post. There are at least 3 bits of information in my post that are not to be found in the national media, though I cannot expect anyone with your mindset (e.g. there is no Fawn Lake) and limited intellect to find them. Well time to bail this poke the troll exercise. It looks like the pig is having too much fun. TaTa I wouldn't expect a Swiftboating ****-weasel to be swayed by facts. If you could be swayed by facts you wouldn't be a Swiftboating ****-weasel in the first place. I will spell it out for you anyway. Your misinformation post inferred that the flooding was a "good" thing because it would disperse the oil spill and send it downstream. In actual fact the flooding is a "bad" thing because it spread the oil into fragile wetlands, marshes and low-lying areas which would not have been affected were it not for the flooding. Your post was dumbass bull**** and misinformation to boot. You have no idea what the hell you're talking about and when confronted with actual fact you revert to personal attack just like the nasty little Swiftboating ****-weasel you really are. The careful reader will find no misinformation in this post. LOL !! LOL. Old Kenny at it again, throwing rocks when he lives in a glass house. If you check his first post in this thread, you will see that it was Kenny Boy himself that "revert(ed) to personal attack just like the nasty little ****-weasel" he is. I post it for you, Kenny: Bob wrote: Though a spill of 1000 barrels is not insignificant and is a tragedy that will have measurable negative impacts, its not as bad as is being portrayed by some. Remember: 1. This occurred ~ 150 river miles downstream of the park. 2. The fishery is primarily carp, catfish,& other warm water species. 3. The Yellowstone is in full flood and flowing very swiftly, thus much of the oil will be in the lower Missouri& the Mississippi and widely dispersed very soon. 4 The amount of petroleum product that was released into the Yellowstone-Missouri-Mississippi basin is probably less than enters the system in one day following any significant rainstorm - runoff from roads& parking lots, waste oil dumped on the ground or even into storm drains, minor industrial spills, etc. "So Bob guesses all is "probably" not as bad as all that and "probably" all should "don't worry, be happy". +++++We could have received just as much information from Big Mouth Billy the Singing Bass.+++++ Thanks a lot Billy, er ... Bob" Someone please copy and repost this so that Kenny can see ME. He chicken-****ted out when Obama got elected and has me "blocked". d;o) But I'm willin' to bet the old Pillsbury Dough Boy is readin' every word. LOL. Louie, Davey, Dave, The Pirate, Bottom Dweller, whatever....... PS: Hey, Kenny..... did I tell you how good the fishing was at Lakewood last week? Twenty fish *mornings*, including big brookies and salmon. d;o) |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Yellowstone Oil Spill
On Jul 10, 3:23*pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Bob wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: There are no posts in this thread, including yours, which give any information whatsoever not given in the national media. Further, your post contained misinformation, that is to say you don't know what in the hell you're talking about. A careful reader will find no misinformation in my post. There are at least 3 bits of information in my post that are not to be found in the national media, though I cannot expect anyone with your mindset (e.g. there is no Fawn Lake) and limited intellect to find them. Well time to bail this poke the troll exercise. It looks like the pig is having too much fun. TaTa I wouldn't expect a Swiftboating ****-weasel to be swayed by facts. If you could be swayed by facts you wouldn't be a Swiftboating ****-weasel in the first place. I will spell it out for you anyway. Your misinformation post inferred that the flooding was a "good" thing because it would disperse the oil spill and send it downstream. In actual fact the flooding is *a "bad" thing because it spread the oil into fragile wetlands, marshes and low-lying areas which would not have been affected were it not for the flooding. Your post was dumbass bull**** and misinformation to boot. You have no idea what the hell you're talking about and when confronted with actual fact you revert to personal attack just like the nasty little Swiftboating ****-weasel you really are. The careful reader will find no misinformation in this post. * LOL !! -- Ken Fortenberry I know I said that I was bailing out of this thread, but you present too tempting a target with this post. Is English your first language, and do you have any understanding whatsoever of the rules of logic? My post inferred nothing. Indeed a post is incapable of inferring anything. In fact it didn't even imply what you inferred from it with your faulty logic. Here's a clue, the fact that most of what occurs is one thing, in no way precludes something else occurring sometimes. BTW you may want to check topo maps of the area and note the paucity of low lying areas, marshes and wetlands in the first 50 miles downstream of this event that would not be totally inundated and subject to swift flows by the current flood level. I doubt that I could ever find a more classic example of the pot calling the kettle black than this "...when confronted with actual fact you revert to personal attack just like the nasty little Swiftboating ****-weasel you really are. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Yellowstone Oil Spill
Bob wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: I wouldn't expect a Swiftboating ****-weasel to be swayed by facts. If you could be swayed by facts you wouldn't be a Swiftboating ****-weasel in the first place. I will spell it out for you anyway. Your misinformation post inferred that the flooding was a "good" thing because it would disperse the oil spill and send it downstream. In actual fact the flooding is a "bad" thing because it spread the oil into fragile wetlands, marshes and low-lying areas which would not have been affected were it not for the flooding. Your post was dumbass bull**** and misinformation to boot. You have no idea what the hell you're talking about and when confronted with actual fact you revert to personal attack just like the nasty little Swiftboating ****-weasel you really are. The careful reader will find no misinformation in this post. LOL !! I know I said that I was bailing out of this thread, ... but my post hit home and hit home HARD so you've got to say something, anything, no matter how ridiculous in a futile and pathetic attempt to save face. Save your breath, ****-weasel. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Some more spill info... | [email protected] | Fly Fishing | 8 | June 16th, 2010 10:08 PM |
Some spill update info... | [email protected] | Fly Fishing | 0 | June 14th, 2010 03:43 AM |
manure spill | JT | Fly Fishing | 4 | April 15th, 2010 06:48 PM |
Big spill in Upstate NY on Black River | Scott Seidman | Fly Fishing | 0 | August 15th, 2005 03:05 PM |
1991 spill on Upper Sac on PBS | Bill Kiene | Fly Fishing | 1 | October 20th, 2003 08:38 PM |